Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Advanced Energy Management Alliance v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C, 28633-28635 [2018-13194]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
Immediately following the conclusion
of the Commission Meeting, a press
briefing will be held in the Commission
Meeting Room. Members of the public
may view this briefing in the designated
overflow room. This statement is
intended to notify the public that the
press briefings that follow Commission
meetings may now be viewed remotely
at Commission headquarters, but will
not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.
[FR Doc. 2018–13195 Filed 6–15–18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Take notice that the Commission
received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
Docket Numbers: EG18–100–000.
Applicants: Foard City Wind, LLC.
Description: Notice of SelfCertification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Foard City Wind,
LLC.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5027.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER10–2924–013.
Applicants: Kleen Energy Systems,
LLC.
Description: Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Kleen Energy
Systems, LLC.
Filed Date: 6/13/18.
Accession Number: 20180613–5125.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER16–1720–006.
Applicants: Invenergy Energy
Management LLC.
Description: Notice of Change in Facts
Under Market-Based Rate Authority of
Invenergy Energy Management LLC.
Filed Date: 6/13/18.
Accession Number: 20180613–5124.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1778–000.
Applicants: CFE International LLC.
Description: Baseline eTariff Filing:
Market Based Rates to be effective 7/1/
2018.
Filed Date: 6/13/18.
Accession Number: 20180613–5103.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1779–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2018–06–13_SA 2155 Ameren Illinois-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
Bishop Hill 2nd Rev GIA (G545) to be
effective 5/14/2018.
Filed Date: 6/13/18.
Accession Number: 20180613–5121.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1780–000.
Applicants: Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
1977R11 Nemaha-Marshall Electric
Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective
9/1/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5034.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1781–000.
Applicants: Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2041R7 Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities PTP Agreement to be effective
9/1/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5038.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1782–000.
Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
Amendment to NCEMC NITSA SA No.
210 (2018) to be effective 7/1/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5042.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1783–000.
Applicants: PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Description: Tariff Cancellation:
Notice of Cancellation of ISA SA No.
4135; Queue No. X1–078 to be effective
6/18/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5044.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1784–000.
Applicants: PacifiCorp.
Description: Compliance filing: OATT
Ancillary Erratum to Compliance Filing
to be effective 7/1/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5049.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
Docket Numbers: ER18–1785–000.
Applicants: Southern California
Edison Company.
Description: Tariff Cancellation:
Notice of Cancellation LA Hecate
Energy Johanna 12 kV–P1 & P2 Projects
to be effective 6/5/2018.
Filed Date: 6/14/18.
Accession Number: 20180614–5052.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the
docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or
protest in any of the above proceedings
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28633
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
Dated: June 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–13196 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket Nos. EL17–32–000; EL17–36–000]
Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments; Old Dominion
Electric Cooperative v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Advanced
Energy Management Alliance v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C
On April 24, 2018, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff convened a technical conference to
obtain further information concerning
the above referenced proceedings
pursuant to a February 23, 2018
Commission order.1
All interested persons are invited to
file post-technical conference comments
on issues raised during the conference
that they believe would benefit from
further discussion. In addition, parties
are invited to provide comments on the
questions listed below, as well as the
questions featured on the Supplement
Notice of Technical Conference and
Technical Conference Agenda issued on
April 18, 2018.2 Commenters need not
respond to all topics or questions asked.
Commenters may reference material
previously filed in this docket,
including the technical conference
transcript, but are encouraged to avoid
repetition or replication of previous
material. In addition, commenters are
encouraged, when possible, to provide
examples in support of their answers.
1 Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,160 (2018).
2 Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference,
Docket No. EL17–32–000 and EL17–36–000 (Apr.
18, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
28634
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
Comments must be submitted on or
before 30 days from the date of this
notice and should not exceed 30 pages.
For more information about this
technical conference, please contact:
John Riehl (Technical Issues), Office of
Energy Market Regulation, 202–502–
6026, john.riehl@ferc.gov, Noah Monick
(Legal Issues), Office of General
Counsel, 202–502–8299, noah.monick@
ferc.gov.
Dated: June 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Post-Technical Conference Questions
for Comment
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Seasonal Load Variation & Alternate
Market Designs
In these proceedings, parties argue
that the move to a single, annual
capacity product has pushed valuable
summer-only resources out of the
capacity market and thereby increased
capacity costs with little to no reliability
benefit, given that PJM is a summerpeaking system. These parties assert that
procuring a portion of capacity as
summer-only allows PJM to procure
significantly less capacity during nonsummer periods and provides
equivalent reliability at lower total
capacity costs. In addition, intervenors
have proposed alternate market designs
in PJM to better facilitate seasonal
resource participation and account for
seasonal load variation. These proposed
alternative market designs include, but
are not limited to: A re-introduction of
a seasonal product,3 a two-season
market construct,4 a three-season market
construct,5 and a supplemental seasonal
ticket scheme approach for summerperiod resources.6 Based on these
proposed alternate market designs,
please answer the following questions.
1. Some panelists indicated that the
current annual construct and existing
aggregation rules result in a barrier to
entry. Please comment on whether or
not there are barriers to entry and
provide any supporting information,
such as unmatched MWs of capacity.
Could this be fully addressed by
improving or modifying aggregation
rules? If not, what other changes would
be required? What would be the
downside of modifying such rules?
3 Preliminary Technical Conference Comments of
Complainants Old Dominion Electric Cooperative,
Direct Energy Business, LLC, and American
Municipal Power, Inc. at 11–14.
4 Pre-Technical Conference Comments of NRDC &
Sustainable FERC Project at 10.
5 Pre-Technical Conference Comments of
Advanced Energy Management Alliance at 5–6.
6 Pre-Technical Conference Comments of James F.
Wilson at 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
2. According to the 2021/2022
Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) Base
Residual Auction (BRA) report,7 cleared
megawatt quantities of wind, solar,
demand response, and energy efficiency
resources all increased compared to the
2020/2021 RPM BRA and at higher
clearing prices throughout the PJM
footprint. Please comment on how these
results reflect on the efficacy of PJM’s
seasonal aggregation mechanism and the
ability of these resource types to
participate in RPM as either annual
resources or aggregated resources under
existing RPM rules. To the extent you
view one or more of the alternative
market designs mentioned above as
better than the existing RPM rules,
please explain how those alternative
designs would yield preferable auction
outcomes relative to those seen in the
2021/2022 BRA. Please provide
evidence and quantitative support
where possible.
3. Under either a two-season or threeseason market construct, how would
PJM optimize capacity procurement
within and across seasons? Would each
season have a distinct demand curve
and auction that clears independently of
other seasons, or would all seasonal
auctions be cleared simultaneously to
optimize procurement for a delivery
year?
4. During the technical conference,
Mr. Falin of PJM noted that PJM
performs a winter-period peak load test
known as a Capacity Emergency
Transfer Objective and Capacity
Emergency Transfer Limit (CETO CETL
analysis). Mr. Falin explained that
during the winter-period CETO CETL
analysis, PJM divides its region into
sub-regions and tests how many MWs of
emergency imports are needed to satisfy
reliability criteria given that specific
sub-region’s quantity of installed
reserves.8 Please describe the
assumptions that PJM makes when it
performs a CETO/CETL analysis for
winter-period peak loads. What
assumptions are markedly different
from summer-period peak load CETO/
CETL analyses? Does PJM perform
winter- and summer-period CETO/CETL
analyses for all sub-areas or LDAs?
5. What other implementation
challenges would be involved in
transitioning to a two-season or threeseason market construct (aside from a
lengthy stakeholder process)?
7 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 2021/2022 RPM
Base Residual Auction Results (May 2018),
available at: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/marketsops/rpm/rpm-auction-info/2021-2022/2021-2022base-residual-auction-report.ashx.
8 Tr. 83:5–13 (Falin).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Peak Shaving
In these proceedings, intervenors
argue that the practice of peak shaving
produces far fewer benefits than
previously understood and, thus, peak
shaving practices are not a viable
pathway for demand response resources
in lieu of participation on the supply
side of PJM’s capacity market. Based on
this characterization of peak shaving’s
limited impacts, please address the
following questions.
1. During the technical conference,
Mr. Falin of PJM indicated that PJM has
put on hold possible changes to the PRD
program to align the program with PJM’s
annual capacity construct. Is PRD a
feasible path forward for incorporating
seasonal DR resources in the capacity
market? Please explain why or why not.
2. During the technical conference,
Mr. Falin stated that, in order for peak
shaving activity to be reflected in load
forecasts, peak shaving actions will
need to be based on specific triggers,
and commit to be interrupted a certain
number of times per summer with a
certain hourly duration. Direct load
control programs operated by electric
distribution companies that cycle air
conditioners or other appliances
typically have these attributes specified
in their tariffs. What is the status of the
recognition of these programs in PJM’s
load forecasts? Please describe the
mechanisms, calculations, and
adjustments that PJM uses to account for
load serving entity (LSE) or electric
distribution company (EDC) direct load
control and load management programs
in PJM load forecasting. Are these load
forecast adjustments performed at the
request of the EDC, or are there clear
and specific procedures or rules that are
applied non-discriminatorily to all LSE
and electric distribution company direct
load control and load management
programs?
3. During the technical conference,
Mr. Falin stated that PJM conducts its
load forecast modeling, and calculates
model forecast accuracy, at the PJM
system level. Mr. Falin also stated that
PJM compared forecasted zonal load to
average historical contribution of each
zone to the PJM’s overall peak and that
number is within a tenth or two-tenths
of a percent of PJM’s zonal forecast. Did
PJM observe any differences in the
model errors by zone, especially for the
zones that have operated summerfocused load management programs for
years? How does the frequency of
summer-focused load management
programs’ deployment, especially their
infrequent deployment during system
peaks, impact PJM load forecasts and
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
the calculated model errors at the zonal
level?
4. According to information provided
in the AEMA complaint in Docket No.
EL17–36–000, Baltimore Gas & Electric
(BG&E) worked with PJM in Maryland
Public Service Commission Rate Case
No. 9406 to reflect its air-conditioner
direct control program into an alternate
load forecast for its zone, but not at the
full load reduction that the program can
produce. Please describe the processes
involved in creating that alternative
load forecast and the assumptions
underlying BG&E’s partial adjustment.
5. In PJM’s June 2017 white paper
‘‘Demand Response Strategy’’, PJM
stated ‘‘Ideally, PJM would have a truly
unrestricted peak-load forecast with a
complete understanding of explicit
(dispatch and/or managed by PJM)
versus implicit (managed by LSE, EDC
or end-use customer) DR, allowing more
visibility to quantify forecast risk.’’ 9
Please describe the steps PJM is taking
to accomplish this goal. Are these steps
sufficient to accomplish this goal? Why
or why not? How is PJM working to
change its load forecasting methodology
to achieve this goal?
[FR Doc. 2018–13194 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 2331–083]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests: Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and is available for public
inspection:
a. Type of Application: Non-Project
Use Application.
b. Project No: 2331–083.
c. Date Filed: May 25, 2018.
d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC (licensee).
e. Name of Project: Ninety-Nine
Islands Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: The project is located on
the Broad River in Cherokee County
South Carolina.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r.
h. Applicant Contact: Jeff Lineberger,
Director, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
9 PJM Interconnection, Demand Response
Strategy at 30–31, (Jun. 2017), available at https://
www.pjm.com/∼/media/library/reports-notices/
demand-response/20170628-pjm-demand-responsestrategy.ashx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
526 S. Church Street—Mail Stop EC12Y,
Charlotte, NC 28202, Jeff.Lineberger@
duke-energy.com.
i. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway at
202–502–8041, or michael.calloway@
ferc.gov.
j. Deadline for filing comments,
motions to intervene, and protests is 30
days from the issuance of this notice by
the Commission. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file motions to intervene,
protests, and comments using the
Commission’s eFiling system at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system
at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866)
208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659
(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The first page of any filing should
include docket number P–2331–083.
k. Description of Request: The
licensee requests Commission approval
to allow Thomas Sand Company, Inc. to
utilize 33.51 acres of project lands and
waters in the upper part of the project
reservoir for mining and processing
sand. The mining facility has the
capacity to withdraw 2.88 million
gallons of water per day for processing
sand even though it does not achieve
this amount daily in practice. The water
is returned to the river after processing.
The mine has extracted 42,000 tons of
sand per year on average since
operations began. The licensee proposes
that the Thomas Sand Mine will operate
under the conditions of South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control (South Carolina
DHEC) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification P/N SAC 2017–01073,
South Carolina DHEC Mining Permit
No. 0869, and National Pollutant
Discharge Permit for Discharges
Associated with Nonmetal Mineral
Mining Facilities Permit No.
SCG730627.
l. Locations of the Application: A
copy of the application is available for
inspection and reproduction at the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
202–502–8371. This filing may also be
viewed on the Commission’s website at
https://www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28635
the docket number field to access the
document. You may also register online
at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, call 866–208–3676 or
email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, for
TTY, call 202–502–8659. A copy is also
available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
m. Individuals desiring to be included
on the Commission’s mailing list should
so indicate by writing to the Secretary
of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to
Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to
intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.
In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all
protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the
Commission’s Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular
application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive
Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in
all capital letters the title COMMENTS;
PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE
as applicable; (2) set forth in the
heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish
the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or
intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or
protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All
comments, motions to intervene, or
protests should relate to the non-project
use application. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from
the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files
comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities
of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in
the service list prepared by the
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28633-28635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13194]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. EL17-32-000; EL17-36-000]
Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; Old Dominion
Electric Cooperative v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Advanced Energy
Management Alliance v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
On April 24, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff convened a technical conference to obtain further
information concerning the above referenced proceedings pursuant to a
February 23, 2018 Commission order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 162
FERC 61,160 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on issues raised during the conference that they
believe would benefit from further discussion. In addition, parties are
invited to provide comments on the questions listed below, as well as
the questions featured on the Supplement Notice of Technical Conference
and Technical Conference Agenda issued on April 18, 2018.\2\ Commenters
need not respond to all topics or questions asked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No.
EL17-32-000 and EL17-36-000 (Apr. 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket,
including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to
avoid repetition or replication of previous material. In addition,
commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples in
support of their answers.
[[Page 28634]]
Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days from the date of this
notice and should not exceed 30 pages.
For more information about this technical conference, please
contact: John Riehl (Technical Issues), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, 202-502-6026, [email protected], Noah Monick (Legal
Issues), Office of General Counsel, 202-502-8299, [email protected].
Dated: June 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment
Seasonal Load Variation & Alternate Market Designs
In these proceedings, parties argue that the move to a single,
annual capacity product has pushed valuable summer-only resources out
of the capacity market and thereby increased capacity costs with little
to no reliability benefit, given that PJM is a summer-peaking system.
These parties assert that procuring a portion of capacity as summer-
only allows PJM to procure significantly less capacity during non-
summer periods and provides equivalent reliability at lower total
capacity costs. In addition, intervenors have proposed alternate market
designs in PJM to better facilitate seasonal resource participation and
account for seasonal load variation. These proposed alternative market
designs include, but are not limited to: A re-introduction of a
seasonal product,\3\ a two-season market construct,\4\ a three-season
market construct,\5\ and a supplemental seasonal ticket scheme approach
for summer-period resources.\6\ Based on these proposed alternate
market designs, please answer the following questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Preliminary Technical Conference Comments of Complainants
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Direct Energy Business, LLC, and
American Municipal Power, Inc. at 11-14.
\4\ Pre-Technical Conference Comments of NRDC & Sustainable FERC
Project at 10.
\5\ Pre-Technical Conference Comments of Advanced Energy
Management Alliance at 5-6.
\6\ Pre-Technical Conference Comments of James F. Wilson at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Some panelists indicated that the current annual construct and
existing aggregation rules result in a barrier to entry. Please comment
on whether or not there are barriers to entry and provide any
supporting information, such as unmatched MWs of capacity. Could this
be fully addressed by improving or modifying aggregation rules? If not,
what other changes would be required? What would be the downside of
modifying such rules?
2. According to the 2021/2022 Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) Base
Residual Auction (BRA) report,\7\ cleared megawatt quantities of wind,
solar, demand response, and energy efficiency resources all increased
compared to the 2020/2021 RPM BRA and at higher clearing prices
throughout the PJM footprint. Please comment on how these results
reflect on the efficacy of PJM's seasonal aggregation mechanism and the
ability of these resource types to participate in RPM as either annual
resources or aggregated resources under existing RPM rules. To the
extent you view one or more of the alternative market designs mentioned
above as better than the existing RPM rules, please explain how those
alternative designs would yield preferable auction outcomes relative to
those seen in the 2021/2022 BRA. Please provide evidence and
quantitative support where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 2021/2022 RPM Base Residual
Auction Results (May 2018), available at: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/rpm/rpm-auction-info/2021-2022/2021-2022-base-residual-auction-report.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Under either a two-season or three-season market construct, how
would PJM optimize capacity procurement within and across seasons?
Would each season have a distinct demand curve and auction that clears
independently of other seasons, or would all seasonal auctions be
cleared simultaneously to optimize procurement for a delivery year?
4. During the technical conference, Mr. Falin of PJM noted that PJM
performs a winter-period peak load test known as a Capacity Emergency
Transfer Objective and Capacity Emergency Transfer Limit (CETO CETL
analysis). Mr. Falin explained that during the winter-period CETO CETL
analysis, PJM divides its region into sub-regions and tests how many
MWs of emergency imports are needed to satisfy reliability criteria
given that specific sub-region's quantity of installed reserves.\8\
Please describe the assumptions that PJM makes when it performs a CETO/
CETL analysis for winter-period peak loads. What assumptions are
markedly different from summer-period peak load CETO/CETL analyses?
Does PJM perform winter- and summer-period CETO/CETL analyses for all
sub-areas or LDAs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Tr. 83:5-13 (Falin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What other implementation challenges would be involved in
transitioning to a two-season or three-season market construct (aside
from a lengthy stakeholder process)?
Peak Shaving
In these proceedings, intervenors argue that the practice of peak
shaving produces far fewer benefits than previously understood and,
thus, peak shaving practices are not a viable pathway for demand
response resources in lieu of participation on the supply side of PJM's
capacity market. Based on this characterization of peak shaving's
limited impacts, please address the following questions.
1. During the technical conference, Mr. Falin of PJM indicated that
PJM has put on hold possible changes to the PRD program to align the
program with PJM's annual capacity construct. Is PRD a feasible path
forward for incorporating seasonal DR resources in the capacity market?
Please explain why or why not.
2. During the technical conference, Mr. Falin stated that, in order
for peak shaving activity to be reflected in load forecasts, peak
shaving actions will need to be based on specific triggers, and commit
to be interrupted a certain number of times per summer with a certain
hourly duration. Direct load control programs operated by electric
distribution companies that cycle air conditioners or other appliances
typically have these attributes specified in their tariffs. What is the
status of the recognition of these programs in PJM's load forecasts?
Please describe the mechanisms, calculations, and adjustments that PJM
uses to account for load serving entity (LSE) or electric distribution
company (EDC) direct load control and load management programs in PJM
load forecasting. Are these load forecast adjustments performed at the
request of the EDC, or are there clear and specific procedures or rules
that are applied non-discriminatorily to all LSE and electric
distribution company direct load control and load management programs?
3. During the technical conference, Mr. Falin stated that PJM
conducts its load forecast modeling, and calculates model forecast
accuracy, at the PJM system level. Mr. Falin also stated that PJM
compared forecasted zonal load to average historical contribution of
each zone to the PJM's overall peak and that number is within a tenth
or two-tenths of a percent of PJM's zonal forecast. Did PJM observe any
differences in the model errors by zone, especially for the zones that
have operated summer-focused load management programs for years? How
does the frequency of summer-focused load management programs'
deployment, especially their infrequent deployment during system peaks,
impact PJM load forecasts and
[[Page 28635]]
the calculated model errors at the zonal level?
4. According to information provided in the AEMA complaint in
Docket No. EL17-36-000, Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) worked with PJM
in Maryland Public Service Commission Rate Case No. 9406 to reflect its
air-conditioner direct control program into an alternate load forecast
for its zone, but not at the full load reduction that the program can
produce. Please describe the processes involved in creating that
alternative load forecast and the assumptions underlying BG&E's partial
adjustment.
5. In PJM's June 2017 white paper ``Demand Response Strategy'', PJM
stated ``Ideally, PJM would have a truly unrestricted peak-load
forecast with a complete understanding of explicit (dispatch and/or
managed by PJM) versus implicit (managed by LSE, EDC or end-use
customer) DR, allowing more visibility to quantify forecast risk.'' \9\
Please describe the steps PJM is taking to accomplish this goal. Are
these steps sufficient to accomplish this goal? Why or why not? How is
PJM working to change its load forecasting methodology to achieve this
goal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ PJM Interconnection, Demand Response Strategy at 30-31,
(Jun. 2017), available at https://www.pjm.com/~/media/library/
reports-notices/demand-response/20170628-pjm-demand-response-
strategy.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-13194 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
